Donald Trump’s SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Hit a Major Roadblock
In a significant political development, Republicans’ attempt to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments has met an unexpected setback. The Senate parliamentarian’s ruling indicated that the proposed change would violate the chamber’s rules, leaving many to wonder about the future of food assistance programs.
Why This Matters
The blocked provision aimed to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), impacting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on vital food support. This proposed shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to states, requiring them to shoulder at least 5 percent—and potentially much more—of these expenses. Analysts have warned that such a move could lead to significant cuts in nutrition support, threatening the well-being of countless families across the nation.
The parliamentarian’s decision has placed additional pressure on the bill’s proponents to explore alternative funding avenues for tax cuts without jeopardizing essential assistance programs.
Key Information About the Proposal
The excised provision was a cornerstone of the Republican strategy to offset costs related to President Donald Trump’s ambitious multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation. As it stands, the defeat of this proposal leaves GOP leaders scrambling to revise the major bill.
Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate parliamentarian, delivered her ruling as the larger package prepared for a critical vote. While advisory, her opinions are generally respected in lawmaking circles. Despite this hurdle, Republican lawmakers are actively seeking new savings to keep Trump’s legislative agenda afloat.
Activists with the Poor People’s Campaign protest critical spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps, and other federal aid programs near the Supreme Court in Washington D.C.
Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance
MacDonough’s declaration deemed the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the Byrd Rule, which restricts certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have resulted in billions of dollars in costs being offloaded from the federal government to the states, creating a new financial burden and jeopardizing coverage for millions of Americans.
House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts
In May 2025, the House passed a broader tax and spending package along party lines, which included a provision requiring states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and potentially more for higher error rates. This provision was projected to save around $128 billion—a crucial goal for GOP leaders hoping to offset the bill’s staggering $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending.
Other Key Provisions
Beyond the SNAP changes, the proposed package includes:
- Extensive tax cuts for individuals and businesses
- New work requirements for Medicaid recipients
- Cuts to federal health and nutrition programs
- Increased military and border security funding
- Elimination of taxes on tips for service workers
GOP Paths Forward
In the wake of the ruling, Republican leaders—including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman from Arkansas—are exploring various options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering on promised savings. Alternatives may involve modifying or removing the contested SNAP provision, though they risk the potential need for a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—a daunting task under the current Senate dynamics.
Impact on SNAP Recipients
Of particular concern is the fact that the plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a potentially devastating change for many. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates have voiced strong opposition, warning that over 3 million individuals could lose access to food stamps, based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
Additional Rulings Expected
The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other contentious elements in the bill, including modifications to immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and adjustments to federal agencies. These additional rulings could further shape the final legislation.
Voices from the Hill
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the leading Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, emphasized, "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," highlighting the adverse effects of shifting SNAP costs to states.
Conversely, Senator John Boozman reassured that Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules while supporting individuals reliant on SNAP.
What Happens Next?
Senate Republicans now face a critical decision: either revise the bill to align with the parliamentarian’s rulings or eliminate the disputed SNAP provisions. Anticipation grows around upcoming decisions from the parliamentarian that could further influence the fate of this expansive megabill.
This article contains reporting from The Associated Press.
For more insights on evolving food policies, visit Feeding America to understand how food assistance programs impact communities across the nation.
